Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/173/2016

M/s. ABT Maruti Limited., The Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

N.C. Poonuswamy - Opp.Party(s)

K. Govi Ganesan-Applt

03 Feb 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                      :     PRESIDENT

                 Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                             :      MEMBER

F.A. No. 173 of 2016

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.56/2012 dated 01.06.2016 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F. (South), Chennai)

Thursday, the 3^rd day of February 2022

The Manager

ABT Maruti Limited

102  Mount Road

Guindy

Chennai – 600 032.                                                                                                               .. Appellant/ 3^rd Opposite Party

- Vs -

1.  N.C. Ponnuswamy

     No.10/27, Coats Road

     T.Nagar

     Chennai – 600 017.                                                                                                   .. 1^st Respondent/ Complainant

 

2.  The Managing Director

     Maruti Suzuki Ltd.,

     Gurgoan – 122 015

     Haryana

 

3.  The Chief General Manager

     Maruti Suzuki Ltd.,

     Gurgoan – 122 015

     Haryana                                                                                                                      .. Respondents 2&3/ Respondents 1&2

    Counsel for Appellant /3^rd Opposite Party : M/s. K. Govi Ganesan

    Counsel for the 1^st Respondent /Complainant : M/s. C.S. Nandakumar

                                                                                [ No representation ]

    Counsel for the Respondents 2&3/Respondents 1&2:  Notice Dispensed with.

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 30.12.2021 and on hearing the arguments of the Appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT

1.        This appeal has been filed by the Appellant / 3^rd Opposite Party under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 01.06.2016 made in C.C. No.56 of 2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), directing the Appellant/ 3^rd Opposite Party herein to replace the fuel gauge (not to collect cost of the fuel gauge and labour charges for fixing the same) within one month and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation charges.

 

2.       The appellant herein is the 3^rd opposite party, the first respondent is the complainant and second and third respondents are the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties before the District Forum.  For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here, as per the ranking before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Chennai (South). 

3.  The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows:  It is the case of the Complainant that on 29.08.2007, he visited the show room of the appellant/ 3^rd opposite party for purchase of Maruti Estilo Car.  The said car is manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party is one of the dealers for the Maruti cars in Chennai.  After giving the test drive, the 3^rd opposite party explained the functioning of the car and its features and informed that the Maruti Estilo new model car would give a mileage of 19 km per litre of petrol, due to K3 new version engine as noted in the catalogue.  Being satisfied with the particulars given by the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant placed a Purchase Order No.5836 dated 11.03.2010 for model Estilo Lxi Dusky Brown colour.  He also paid the entire sale price, the 3^rd opposite party delivered the car vide Registration No.TN 09BC 9309 on 23.03.2010 along with three years warranty.  When the complainant started using the car, he observed that the car is giving less mileage of 12 km per litre petrol and not 19 km per litre, as stated by the third opposite party.  The complainant has purchased the car only based on the assurance given by the opposite parties about the mileage that would be given by the car.  Further, there is no indication mark in the fuel gauge like (reserve), 1/4^th , ½th , 3/4^th level mark in the fuel gauge.  Even after filling the sufficient petrol in the last stage of blinking condition (reserve), the fuel gauge is not immediately indicating the amount of fuel in the fuel tank.  Furthermore, while driving on national highways, when the fuel gauge (reserve) blinks, the petrol is filled but the fuel gauge is not indicating the level/ amount of fuel and it takes minimum of 8 minutes to show that the petrol level has increased.  Even then, the exact level is not indicated.  It is very difficult and risky for the complainant to drive long in the national highways without knowing the exact amount of fuel and whether the petrol bunk filled the petrol or not.  In other words, there is no mechanism to find exact level of the fuel.  To know the exact mileage per litre, the complainant had given the car for kilometre function test to the third opposite party and after being tested by the Engineer, the third opposite party has certified that it is giving a mileage of 12 km per litre.  Hence, the complainant sent a complaint letter dated 04.08.2011 to the 3^rd opposite party, for which the 3^rd opposite party sent a reply dated 20.08.2011 stating that when the ignition switch is turned on (engine running condition) fuel gauge takes 8 minutes to show the exact fuel 1^st level position and that the same is due to the feature of the electronic digital fuel gauge fit in the car.  It is the further submission of the complainant that there is a fault in the fuel gauge system functioning.  Due to the defect in the fuel gauge, it is not indicating the amount of fuel immediately after filling the fuel tank.  That is a default of manufacturer’s design.  After purchase, the complainant had used the car for 13,000 kms., in about 19 months.   The opposite party has misrepresented the facts regarding mileage and further the fuel gauge has also not served the purpose of showing the level.  As a result of which the complainant had suffered mental agony. Further, owing to the difference in the mileage (12 km instead of 19 km per litre petrol), the complainant has suffered heavy loss.  Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 24.10.2011 to the opposite parties calling upon them to replace the deficient fuel gauge and engine of the car and rectify the complaint within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.  The 3^rd opposite party sent a reply dated 15.11.2011 denying the allegations of the complainant.  Hence, finally left with no other alternative, the complainant has filed the complaint for the following reliefs :-

1. to refund the amount of Rs.26,000/- along with interest @ 18% from the date of filing the complaint and further loss till present day towards the fuel charges which incurred due to the lower mileage than promised by the opposite parties.
2. to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards enormous hardship, financial deprivation and mental agony caused to the complainant.
3. to replace the engine and fuel gauge of the vehicle as the present value of the same is about Rs.1 lakh, and
4. to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards legal counsel fees, filing and other expenses.

 

4.  Resisting the complaint, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed the written statement stating that the complainant has filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint. The complainant has failed to set out any case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the opposite parties.  The primary warranty to the vehicle in question had concluded on 18.03.2012 by efflux of time.  Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

5.  The allegations made in the purported complaint are outside the scope and ambit of the allegations, as required by section 2(i)(c) of the Act to constitute a valid complaint. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are Managing Director and Chief General Manager of Maruti Suzuki Limited respectively, which is world renowned automobile manufacturing company having presence in India for almost a quarter of a century.  The vehicle purchased by the complainant, namely, ‘ZEN ESTILO’ is one of the best selling models of the opposite parties. Before any vehicle is launched in the market it has to undergo several processes of statutory approvals and compliances apart from internal research and development.  All the vehicles so manufactured by the opposite parties are duly approved by Appropriate Authority of Government of India (ARAI) after homologation test, considering all aspects of quality, safety and emission norms.  The opposite party is an ISO certified company.  The average mileage of the vehicle is certified as per ARAI certification required under Section 115 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules.  The vehicles so manufactured by the opposite parties are most fuel efficient and gives good mileage.  The relationship between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and the dealer is that of Principal –to- Principal basis only as per the dealership agreement executed between the opposite parties.  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are not privy to the alleged transaction and hence on this short ground alone, the complaint deserved to be dismissed.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties deny that the complainant observed less mileage than the assurance given by the dealer, with regard to the mileage of vehicle as alleged by the complainant.  The average mileage of the vehicle is certified as per ARAI certification required under Section 115 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules.  The vehicle so manufactured by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are most fuel efficient and gives good mileage.  The mileage of the vehicle depends on several factors viz., driving habits, gear change pattern, usage of AC, Air pressure in the tyres, wind speed, traffic conditions, fuel quality, non adulterated standard fuel, maintenance of vehicle, road conditions etc.   The vehicle purchased by the complainant is one of the best selling models.  The complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of the 3^rd opposite party for obtaining 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd free inspection services on 20.04.2010 at 777 kms., on 13.09.2010 at 2503 kms., and on 15.03.2011 at 7803 kms., respectively.  At the time of obtaining the said services, the complainant did not report the alleged problem nor any abnormality was observed by the expert service engineer of the workshop.  Normal service as per periodic maintenance schedule was carried out to the vehicle.  After service, the complainant had taken the vehicle without any protest.  But, no assurance with regard to mileage was ever made.  The vehicle in question was defect free.  The fuel gauge is an instrument used to indicate the level of fuel contained in a tank.  There is no system like reserve fuel in the cars as enabled in two wheelers.  The vehicle is fitted with a digital fuel indicator and it does not show any volume indication.  There is no system for 1/4^th, ½th and 3/4^th level mark in the fuel gauge (digital indicators) as alleged by the complainant.  If lesser quantity of fuel is filled more time is taken for the blinking to stop and on the contrary if higher volume of fuel is filled the blinking stops faster. There is no mechanism to find the exact level of fuel as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant has filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint since there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.

6.  Though notice was served by the District Forum, the 3^rd opposite party did not appear before the Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the 3^rd opposite party was set ex-parte. 

7.  In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit has been filed and 17 documents were filed as Ex.A1 to Ex.A17.  On the side of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, 9 documents were filed, which were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B9, along with proof affidavit.

8.  After analyzing the evidence and entire records, the District Consumer Redressal Forum have come to the conclusion that the driving habits and driving conditions varies from person to person and that the dispute has been raised by the complainant against the opposite parties after a lapse of 19 months, which could have been rectified at the initial stage itself, i.e., during the period of three free services.  If the complainant needs to substantiate the defects in the product purchased he should have approached the opposite parties well in time but he has not done so.  However, the District Forum has come to a conclusion that the 3^rd opposite party has to replace the fuel gauge without collecting the cost of the fuel gauge and labour charges for fixing the same, and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.  Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the 3^rd opposite party.

9.  Heard the arguments and perused the material available on records.

10.  The main submission of the appellant is that there is no reserve fuel system in cars as enabled in two wheelers and the car purchased by the complainant is filed with a digital fuel indicator.  In the digital system there is no system indication of 1/4^th , ½ th or 3/4^th level marks and as soon as the blinking begins fuel has to be immediately filled up.   Otherwise if there is a long delay in filling the fuel from the time the blinking begins, then the blinking will stop only after a time delay of around 7 minutes.  This is the system arrangement in digital fuel indicators.  Further, if lesser quantity of fuel is filled more time is taken for the blinking to stop and on the contrary if higher volume of fuel is filled the faster the blinking stops.  In the instant case, there is no defect in the fuel gauge and the same is working in a perfect condition.   On the contrary, it is the submission of the complainant that fuel gauge is not functioning properly and at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle, an assurance was given by the 3^rd opposite party that the car would give a mileage of 19 kms per litre.  But the car gives only 12 kms per litre. We find that to substantiate the said statement of the complainant that there is manufacturing defect, no proof was produced.  Moreover, it is a common logic, as contended by the counsel for the opposite parties that the mileage of the vehicle depends on several factors namely driving habits, gear change pattern, usage of AC, Air pressure in the tyres, wind speed, traffic conditions, fuel quality, non adulterated standard fuel, maintenance of vehicle, road conditions etc.   Though the complainant has stated that fuel gauge is not working properly, he has not given any complaint to the opposite parties till he completed three free services.  In fact, he had used the car, even according to his statement, about 13000 kms in about 19 months.  Only in the legal notice he has made the allegation that fuel gauge is not functioning.  Though the District Forum has observed that after usage of the vehicle for 19 months, it is not fair on the part of the complainant to raise the issue when he had not substantiated the complaint with documentary evidence to prove the defect, it has directed the 3^rd opposite party only to replace the fuel gauge (not to collect the cost of the fuel gauge and labour charges for fixing the same).  The District Forum has not given any valid reasons for the above direction, even after coming to the conclusion that the complainant had used the vehicle for 19 months without any complaints.  Furthermore, we are of the opinion that this is a case where an expert opinion is necessary to substantiate the allegation made in the complaint.  But no expert opinion was produced.  Merely based on the statements made in the complaint, directions cannot be given to the opposite parties.

11.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the direction of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) granting Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony is not legally sustainable, in the background of the case.  Hence, the order is liable to be set aside.   Accordingly, set aside.     Consequently, the appeal is allowed.

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                              R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/January/2022